These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Treating multifocal humerus fractures: A comparison between the mipo technique and intramedullary nailing.
    Author: Ortega-Yago A, Balfagón-Ferrer A, Barrés-Carsí M, Bas-Hermida JL.
    Journal: Injury; 2022 Oct; 53(10):3332-3338. PubMed ID: 35970638.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Proximal humerus fractures with metaphysodiaphyseal extension represent a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon due to their reduced incidence and the difficulty in the treatment decision. These can be treated with an intramedullary nail or using the MIPO technique, associating different advantages and complications depending on the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare metaphyseal-diaphyseal fractures of the humerus treated with antegrade intramedullary nailing and those operated using the MIPO technique to see if there were significant differences in terms of functional, clinical, and radiological results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: retrospective, analytical and unicentric review of 29 patients with proximal fracture with metaphyseal-diaphyseal extension treated by MIPO technique and 33 patients surgically treated by antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) in our hospital from 2014 to 2020. Demographic, functional, radiographic and clinical data were obtained.. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of fracture mechanism (p=0.34), fracture type (p=0.13) or Maresca classification (p=0.32). Surgical time was significantly shorter in the IMN group compared to the MIPO technique (p=0.014). No significant difference was observed regarding the need for blood transfusion (p=0.32). The mean consolidation in the MIPO group was 21 weeks compared to 21 weeks in the IMN, with no significant differences between both groups (p= 0.88). No significant differences were observed between CONSTANT test at one year in the MIPO group versus the IMN group (p=0.79), nor in radial nerve palsies (p=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal fractures with metaphyseal-diaphyseal extension are a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon due to the infrequency, the complexity of these fractures and the fact that there is no established consensus on the ideal treatment for this type of injury. Both the MIPO technique with the Philos plate and the intramedullary nail are valid options for the treatment of these fractures, with no differences observed in terms of fracture consolidation time or in terms of functional results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]